On the whole government spending shenanigans…
“A billion here, a billion there…pretty soon your talking about real money.”
--Everett McKinley Dirksen attrib.
I agree that these stunning figures - in recent spending and rampant pork - in Congress are disturbing, but there is something that no one ever talks about. I'm really not knowledgeable enough to know how this all shakes out but people and especially the press love to talk about government spending as a by-definition negative force on the "proper" way things "ought to be." The Washington Post recently said that “every earmark is a conscious decision to waste the taxpayers money.”
I'm not an economist and not an expert, but we all know the familiar contrast between hating or distrusting Congress, but happening to think our Rep is just fine - "he/she brings home the bacon" etc, etc. My point is that there is an aspect of this story, often told as a self-evident example of Congressional avarice, that is - whether avaricious or not - quite harmless and occasionally even resoundingly beneficial.
My point is this - Congressional spending is not spending in a vacuum - it is not a disappearance of money. It is, like it or not, money spent largely in America, largely on Americans and largely employing Americans and thus largely taxable in return. I'm no pro-tax, and I too support the tax cuts - I think they are a net stimulus. I am also worried about the debt and deficit, etc. I do want controls and I know such a large debt can effect interest rates, inflation, etc. I get it. Fine, let's have the debate and fight it out, and see who gets what.
But, speaking of domestic spending now, a lot of this "terrible fear" of the government building an extraneous off-ramp somewhere? Or a school in Paduka? Or a museum with some congressman's name on it? I can't get too fired up. That's a few million dollars that put food on the table for probably a couple hundred families for a year, and was in turn taxed, and now we have another off-ramp or a school or a whatever. Yes, we have to care what happens to our money. But when the government spends money - at least in America - the money doesn't vanish into thin air, which is much the way the press reports it. American tax money by and large goes right back to tax-paying Americans in jobs, products and services. Even the universally demonized and occasionally subsidized farm conglomerates, insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies might actually employ good, hardworking patriotic Americans. I'm not referring to anything in particular, I just wonder if this whole debate on spending couldn't be a bit more civil? Maybe, just maybe, it's not the end of the world? Or even the end of Reaganism. Maybe it's just American government, warts and all.
In reality, the highway bill is a jobs bill. Is it that different than FDR’s CCC or TVA? Love them or like them, do we now see those programs as a conscious decision to be wasteful? If we want to debate the role of government in creating jobs and the impact of federal building programs have on creating de facto entitlements and so on, fine. That sounds like a healthy debate and one that should be out there, but calling every single earmark “a waste of money” seems a little extreme to me – such a simplistic, unintellectual, even clumsy assessment from such an elitist cudgel of a newspaper should raise more eyebrows than it has. Ten bucks says WP would be leading the earmark chorus if they could find a way to give Dems credit for it.
Yes, with Katrina we see the very clear argument against the good chairman's $231 million bridge to nowhere and probably a hundred other such earmarks. We don't know when we will need those millions, and times like this show us the importance of keeping things under control and this congress has certainly not even attempted restraint. But it is hardly self-evident truth that all such projects are a "conscious waste of taxpayers money." They are a conscious use of taxpayers money - the waste part is optional.
--Everett McKinley Dirksen attrib.
I agree that these stunning figures - in recent spending and rampant pork - in Congress are disturbing, but there is something that no one ever talks about. I'm really not knowledgeable enough to know how this all shakes out but people and especially the press love to talk about government spending as a by-definition negative force on the "proper" way things "ought to be." The Washington Post recently said that “every earmark is a conscious decision to waste the taxpayers money.”
I'm not an economist and not an expert, but we all know the familiar contrast between hating or distrusting Congress, but happening to think our Rep is just fine - "he/she brings home the bacon" etc, etc. My point is that there is an aspect of this story, often told as a self-evident example of Congressional avarice, that is - whether avaricious or not - quite harmless and occasionally even resoundingly beneficial.
My point is this - Congressional spending is not spending in a vacuum - it is not a disappearance of money. It is, like it or not, money spent largely in America, largely on Americans and largely employing Americans and thus largely taxable in return. I'm no pro-tax, and I too support the tax cuts - I think they are a net stimulus. I am also worried about the debt and deficit, etc. I do want controls and I know such a large debt can effect interest rates, inflation, etc. I get it. Fine, let's have the debate and fight it out, and see who gets what.
But, speaking of domestic spending now, a lot of this "terrible fear" of the government building an extraneous off-ramp somewhere? Or a school in Paduka? Or a museum with some congressman's name on it? I can't get too fired up. That's a few million dollars that put food on the table for probably a couple hundred families for a year, and was in turn taxed, and now we have another off-ramp or a school or a whatever. Yes, we have to care what happens to our money. But when the government spends money - at least in America - the money doesn't vanish into thin air, which is much the way the press reports it. American tax money by and large goes right back to tax-paying Americans in jobs, products and services. Even the universally demonized and occasionally subsidized farm conglomerates, insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies might actually employ good, hardworking patriotic Americans. I'm not referring to anything in particular, I just wonder if this whole debate on spending couldn't be a bit more civil? Maybe, just maybe, it's not the end of the world? Or even the end of Reaganism. Maybe it's just American government, warts and all.
In reality, the highway bill is a jobs bill. Is it that different than FDR’s CCC or TVA? Love them or like them, do we now see those programs as a conscious decision to be wasteful? If we want to debate the role of government in creating jobs and the impact of federal building programs have on creating de facto entitlements and so on, fine. That sounds like a healthy debate and one that should be out there, but calling every single earmark “a waste of money” seems a little extreme to me – such a simplistic, unintellectual, even clumsy assessment from such an elitist cudgel of a newspaper should raise more eyebrows than it has. Ten bucks says WP would be leading the earmark chorus if they could find a way to give Dems credit for it.
Yes, with Katrina we see the very clear argument against the good chairman's $231 million bridge to nowhere and probably a hundred other such earmarks. We don't know when we will need those millions, and times like this show us the importance of keeping things under control and this congress has certainly not even attempted restraint. But it is hardly self-evident truth that all such projects are a "conscious waste of taxpayers money." They are a conscious use of taxpayers money - the waste part is optional.
posted by JCH | 7:38 PM
<< Home